Contradiction between Conservation Laws and Orthodox Quantum Mechanics

M. E. Burgos

.

DOI: 10.4236/jmp.2010.12019                

Abstract

In this paper, it showed that the orthodox version of quantum mechanics contradicts the idea that conservation laws are valid in individual processes of measurement.

Keywords

Conservation Laws, Orthodox Quantum Mechanics, Measuring Problem

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	L. E. Ballentine, “The statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics,” Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 42, 1970, p. 358.
[2]	M. Bunge, “Treatise on Basic Philosophy,” Vol. 7, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1985, pp. 191-205.
[3]	P. Busch and A. Shimony, “Unsolubility of the Quantum Measurement Problem for Unsharp Unobservables,” Physical Review D, Vol. 9, 1974, p. 2321.
[4]	M. Jammer, “The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics,” John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1974.
[5]	G. C. Ghirardi, A. Rimini and T. Weber, “The Puzzling Entanglement of Schrödinger Wave Function,” Foun- dations of Physis C, Vol. 18, No. 1, 1987, pp. 1-27.
[6]	L. Diosi, “Models for Universal Reduction of Macro- scopic Quantum Fluctuations,” Physical Review A, Vol. 40, No. 3, 1989, pp. 1165-1174.
[7]	E. Joos and H. D. Zeh, “The Emergence of Classical Properties through Interaction with the Enviroment,” Zeitschrift für Physik B, Vol. 59, 1985, p. 223.
[8]	L. E. Ballentine, “Failure of Some Theories of State Reduction,” Physical Review A, Vol. 43, No. 1, 1991, pp. 9-12.
[9]	E. P. Wigner, “Die Messung Quantenmechanischer Operatoren,” Zeitschrift für Physik, Vol. 131, 1952, pp. 101-108.
[10]	H. Araki and M. M. Yanase, “Measurement of Quantum Mechanical Operators,” Physical Review, Vol. 120, No. 2, 1960, pp. 622-626.
[11]	H. Stein and A. Shimony, “Limitation on Quantum Measurements,” in: B. d’Espagnat, Ed., Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Academic, New York, 1971.
[12]	G. C. Ghirardi, F. Miglietta, A. Rimini and T. Weber, “Limitation on Quantum Measurements,” Physical Review D, Vol. 24, No. 2, 1981, pp. 353-358.
[13]	M. Ozawa, “Does a Conservation Law Limit Position Measurements?” Physical Review Letters, Vol. 67, No. 15, 1991, pp. 1956-1159.
[14]	H. Primas, “Realism and Quantum Mechanics,” Pro- ceedings of 9th International Congress of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, Vol. 134, 1991, pp. 609-631.
[15]	A. Messiah, “Quantum Mechanics,” North-Holland Pub.lishing Company, Amsterdam, 1974.
[16]	J. von Neumann, “Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics,” Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1955.
[17]	E. Merzbacher, “Quantum Mechanics,” John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1977.
[18]	C. Cohen Tannoudji, B. Diu and F. Laloë, “Quantum Mechanics,” John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1977.
[19]	M. E. Burgos, “Conservation Laws and Deterministic Evolutions,” Physics Essays, Vol. 7, No. 1, 1994, pp. 69-71.
[20]	M. E. Burgos, “Does Conservation of Energy Apply in Processes Ruled by Quantum Mechanical Laws?” Speculations in Science and Technology, Vol. 20, 1997, pp. 183-187.
[21]	M. E. Burgos, F. G. Criscuolo and T. L. Etter, “Conservation Laws, Machines of The First Type and Superluminal Communication,” Speculations in Science and Technology, Vol. 21, No. 4, 1999, pp. 227-233.
[22]	F. G. Criscuolo and M. E. Burgos, “Conservation Laws in Spontaneous and Mesurement-Like Individual Processes,” Physics Essays, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2000, pp. 80-84.
[23]	P. Pearle, “Suppose the State Vector is Real: The Description and Consequences of Dynamical Reduction,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 480 1986, pp. 539-551.
[24]	A. Afriat and F. Selleri, “The Foundations of Quantum Mechanics-Historical Analysis and Open Questions,” in: C. Garola and A. Rossi, Eds., Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1995.
[25]	M. E. Burgos, “Which Natural Processes Have the Special Status of Measurements?” Foundations of Phy- sisc, Vol. 28, No. 8, 1998, pp. 1323-1346.
[26]	M. E. Burgos, “Transitions to the Continuum: Three Different Approaches,” Foundations of Physisc, Vol. 38, No. 10, 2008, pp. 883-907.